In his new book The War on Journalism: Media Moguls, Whistleblowers and the Price of Freedom, ex-ABC journalist Andrew Fowler drops a bombshell. Fowler claims the late media mogul Kerry Packer hired a top private investigator to hack the telephone of the former Labor prime minister Paul Keating. The context was the period leading up to the 1996 election and Keating had just knocked back Packer’s Optus-Telstra duopoly plan. Packer was furious and he “let loose the dogs of war against Keating”.
Fowler writes: “The man, whom Packer had flown out secretly from Europe, tried to tap the landline of Keating’s home phone in Elizabeth Bay. A source told me the private investigator unlocked the cover on the telephone switching post in Keating’s street and placed crocodile clips on the phone line in an attempt to listen in to conversations … When he returned empty-handed for the second time, Packer terminated the contract.”
We approached James Packer for comment and a spokesman for Consolidated Press Holdings said the story was “ridiculous and laughable”. Keating did not reply to requests for comment.
A former senior Australian Consolidated Press source, who worked with Packer, was more sceptical, saying it was “highly unlikely to be even halfway true”.
“Packer gave his opponents and enemies no quarter, for sure,” the source said. “But the stakes of being caught out employing some private dick to break the law about a dozen different ways and hack Keating’s home phone with alligator clips at a telegraph poll nearby are just too great for him to try it. Too much downside and not enough upside even for an inveterate gambler.”
Fowler, a veteran investigative reporter, is adamant the story is correct and says he is “not one bit surprised” by it because Packer was ruthless and believed he was above the law.
Coles shelves Zoo magazine
A campaign by anti-sexism group Collective Shout to get lads’ mag Zoo Weekly, published by Bauer Media, off Coles supermarket shelves has been successful. A petition started by the grassroots campaigners inspired young Coles employee Shannen to complain to her employer about having to sell the magazine. “The sale of Zoo magazine in my workplace creates a hostile working environment because it condones the purchase of a magazine that eroticises female subjugation and vulnerability.”
Coles informed Shannen that the magazine would be discontinued. Now Collective Shout has its sights set on Woolworths, which is still stocking the magazine.
Latham, then never
Seasoned newspaper editor Michael “Stutch” Stutchbury has a curious way of dealing with press inquiries. As editor-in-chief of the Australian Financial Review, he was the man reporters wanted to speak to about his columnist Mark Latham who was under fire for trolling prominent women online. On Monday the former Labor leader – or rather the @RealMarkLatham account which is believed to be him – tweeted that he had been sacked by the AFR.
BuzzFeed political editor Mark Di Stefano, the reporter who broke the story linking Latham to the less-than-savoury @RealMarkLatham Twitter account, had been chasing Stutchbury for days. He told Weekly Beast that when he called Stutch, confirmed it was him and then asked a question, he was met with 20 seconds of silence before the editor just hung up. Numerous follow-up calls went unanswered. When Weekly Beast called Stutch he varied his technique, at least feigning politeness. “I am just in a meeting now but I don’t know anything about that,” he said.
Asked if he had sacked Latham, he hesitated, claimed there was another caller on the line and then after a long silence hung up. Later, the Fin confirmed online that Latham had indeed parted ways with the paper “amid controversy over his views on feminism and other social issues” but he denied he had been sacked. In the un-bylined report, Stutch was quoted praising Latham as “provocative and highly readable”. But privately Stutch had even higher praise for Latham.
Stutch relished Latham’s politically incorrect attacks on particular targets and he enjoyed the attention Latham brought the paper. “He also has controversially covered social issues, often from a self-styled western Sydney perspective, including a sharp critique of feminism, the medicalisation of mental illness and domestic violence,” Stutch said in AFR’s report.
Not everyone in the media is cheering Latham’s departure. Gay Alcorn, writing for Guardian Australia, said Latham was a unique and insightful voice. The Daily Telegraph’s Miranda Devine is also a fan of Latham’s writing, even though she has been targeted by him.
“His columns are original and lively, thought provoking and unpredictable. He offends every sacred cow and politically correct shibboleth, from left-wing feminism to AFL’s boo-patrol”, she wrote on Wednesday. “Latham’s crime is that he offended Twitter’s frightbat set”.
Hold the front page (and ignore the internet)
Our favourite story from the Australian’s media section this week was “Hold the front page: how the papers got Thai bomb story on page one” by media business reporter Darren Davidson. With Rupert Murdoch in town it was very important to show the boss that his News Corp papers are, well, doing their job and putting out papers. Davidson told us the editors “stopped the presses” and “held up two trucks at the print centre” in order to get news of the Thai bombing in the newspapers.
“‘It was all hands to the wheel,’ [Daily Telegraph editor Paul] Mr Whittaker said. We’re here to publish newspapers if practical at any time of the night or day for big news events … It was worth the effort as quite a few of our readers, particularly the commuters, have got the latest news about this sad tragedy in their hands this morning.”
Davidson did acknowledge that there was something called the internet in his final par: “And it was back to News Corp’s websites this morning, for live continuous coverage of the explosion in the Thai capital, which has killed 19 and left more than 100 injured in the latest reports.”
Rapid-fire response
When Georgie Loudon, the senior media adviser to the Department of Justice, was asked by the Daily Telegraph about a police officer who was carrying a gun in a court, she dutifully drafted a “ proposed response” and send it to her superiors in the attorney general’s office for approval. Unfortunately, Loudon cc-d her email to her media contact list and it went out to hundreds of court reporters.
Loudon’s statement was: “As the police officer was not required to give evidence yesterday, the magistrate determined there was no need for them to be in the courtroom with a weapon. This was in compliance with the protocol which does not abrogate the right of judicial officers to control their courtroom. The NSW Sheriff remains responsible for enforcing court security.”
Quick as a flash the Australian’s senior writer Ean Higgins responded to everyone on the list: “Hi Georgie – Thanks for including me in these discussions - it’s great to be asked our opinion on The Australian about how you should respond to the Daily Tel about what sounds like a pretty juicy story. I think the proposed response is fine, but a little bland. Why not say something like: ‘As the police officer was not required to give evidence yesterday, the magistrate determined they could take their pow-pow and shove off out of his courtroom’.”
